Monday, January 25, 2016
Private
I've noticed a trend from Progressive christian pastors in the years since I've been reading blogs. I think of this as the "Members Only" trend. These folks happily blog away or post their sermons on their blog, saying all sorts of strange and provocative things, then all of a sudden decide that they need to make access to their wisdom for "Members Only". One wonders why this sudden need to hide (in a recent case) ones sermons from the world. Why would someone post their sermons for years then suddenly hide them? I think that most of us would conclude that they are afraid of something. What, I'm not sure. Criticism? Fear that the folks at the next church they apply at will read their sermons? Shame? Repentance? I don't know, but I also don't trust people who are ashamed of what they say publicly and feel the need to hide it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
123 comments:
I know nothing of what people/preachers you are speaking of, but in our church Facebook page, it is Members Only for the reason that prayer concerns and other private matters get shared there sometimes and so it is for the reason of privacy.
That may not be at all what's happening at your blogs you speak of, just offering one possibility and the suggestion that perhaps it's best not to assume the worst.
First, I'm not assuming anything.
Second, These are people who have maintained public blogs for years.
Third, These tend to be people who have said/ say very controversial things.
Fourth, My suspicion is that there is some degree of fear that their words will be used "against" them.
Fifth, If #4 is correct, then I find it kind of disingenuous to publicly say/write provocative things but then to attempt to hide them as a means of self preservation.
Sixth, This recent instance might be completely appropriate and innocent, but I have seen a trend and wanted to comment on it.
re: 4: Do you have any basis for that suspicion? It may well be the case, but do you know any of these people or have some data to make it a reasonable suspicion, or is it based on nothing more than guesswork as a possible option?
Any progressives I know are fine with other people knowing their positions. Of course, if one works in a more traditional arena (ie, Southern Baptist churches) where holding "controversial" opinions might be used against them, then they might be more protective of their "controversial" views. So, it is certainly a possibility, I'm just saying I wouldn't suspect it simply because it is a possibility. I, my pastor, my wife, my fellow church-goers... we're all fine with people knowing our views. But then, we have no desire to be part of a more traditional church.
Are these pastors people who might want to work in a traditional church some day, do you think?
Yes I do. This gentleman's views have reverberated throughout his denomination and have provided significant evidence of multiple failures on the part of said denomination to abide by the governance documents of the denomination. The fact is that there are several gentlemen who have similar views and who have all gone to significant lengths to hide much of what they have written over the years. I don;t know for sure, but given the denomination in question I feel safe in saying that the views expressed would significantly limit employment options. There is also the very real possibility that the denomination could bring action against any of these gentlemen for (among other things) violating their ordination vows or lying when they took their ordination vows.
I did ask for a reason on the still accessible section of the blog, so I guess I'll see what is said.
No answer why, but apparently they are available elsewhere.
So, if they are available somewhere, does that mean that it doesn't sound like they are hiding their views?
I'd suggest that hiding is probably too strong, but depending how buried they are elsewhere it could still be trying to make them harder to find. Even if this particular gentleman isn't completely hiding these, it still doesn't negate the trend. Also, note the lack of a reason for the action.
One more thought, even though the sermons are still available, there is a significant number of people who would access these sermons from the blog and by making them "members only" from the blog and not linking to the new location it does obscure the location from those people. Again, the question in the post still stands. "Why?"
You'd have to ask the individuals involved. I just wouldn't presume nefarious motives with nothing more than you have. Grace, and all that.
For instance, many weeks ago you chastised Planned Parenthood for some alleged criminal behaviors based upon "investigations" by a group that, themselves, used illegal methods to "investigate" (or smear, depending upon your view). Now, many months later, every investigation I've heard of into PP has cleared them of illegal charges and, indeed, the only criminal charges have been into those who tried to smear PP with distorted and - by all the data presented thus far - false claims. Now, with all these investigations clearing PP, I do not presume that you had nefarious motives in your charges. I would give you the benefit of the doubt that you will eventually admit the charges were, by all data thus far, false.
Why not give others the grace that you would want for yourself?
First, if you actually read my post, it's more about wondering why, than assigning nefarious motives.
As for the PP situation, let's look at the facts. The fact is that you have unedited video of PP executives involved in numerous actions that are heinous and appear to violate federal law. As we all well know (Hilary Clinton) is that there are plenty of instances where illegal actions are not prosecuted. As for the "indictment" of the journalists, the DA involved is a board member of PP so at a minimum there is a significant conflict of interest, so I'm not sure I'd get all excited about that yet.
Anyway, in case you never understood it, my point with the PP story is that the actions of PP are vile, disgusting, and immoral regardless of the legal situation. Unfortunately there are too many folks like you who will defend PP pretty much no matter what they do.
I noticed you chose to ignore the lasted wonderfulness from PP.
You probably even believe that PP gets $500 million tax dollars to do mammograms, don't you?
I do want to thank you for once again demonstrating your propensity to make points and arguments based on what it "seems" I've said, rather than what I actually said.
"One wonders why this sudden need to hide (in a recent case) ones sermons from the world. Why would someone post their sermons for years then suddenly hide them?"
The above quote was the crux of my post, you've chosen to act as if my speculation was somehow something more than speculation.
It's a good thing I know that you would never assign nefarious motives to someone without absolute hard and fast objective proof.
Of course the fact that you are investing so much of your limited time and energy commenting on this post, when you've started conversations on other posts and chosen to leave in the middle. Not assigning nefarious motives, just curious what motivates you to run out on some threads while investing energy in this one.
I've said in the past: Sometimes, a post just doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Sometimes, when someone continues not to understand my points, in spite of repeated explanations and clarifications, it makes you just want to say, "I'm giving up on this post, we can try again another day..." There's only so much time I'm able to dedicate to one post. Not nefarious, just practical.
I never said nefarious, just that the posts you decide aren't worth it, tend to be those where you get backed into a corner or stop answering questions. Not nefarious at all, more like convenient.
Not convenient. Not backed into a single corner. Just worn out.
I am intrigued though. "Backed into a corner..."? Is that really what you think some of your questions have done for me? That I'm flummoxed by them and unable to address them?
You don't realize/think that it's just because it's a meaningless question or one where the answer should be obvious or has been answered a dozen times already?
I didn't realize that is what you thought. Funny.
If you're so inclined, by all means, ask me one of these questions - your very best example - that you think have "backed me into a corner..." I'm curious what it is that has caused you to think that. Or not. Just curious.
"I am intrigued though. "Backed into a corner..."? Is that really what you think some of your questions have done for me? That I'm flummoxed by them and unable to address them?"
It would seem so considering how often you fail to truly address the questions. You seem to believe that ANY response is an answer, when an answer actually resolves the question. Your responses rarely do this in any way, shape or form, and thus the continued probing. You're worn out? I have no doubt dodging questions will do that.
"You don't realize/think that it's just because it's a meaningless question or one where the answer should be obvious or has been answered a dozen times already?"
Ironic coming from one who asks so many irrelevant, distracting and moot questions. What's more, you do NOT answer questions simply because you post a response.
"If you're so inclined, by all means, ask me one of these questions - your very best example - that you think have "backed me into a corner...""
If you think marriage, "gay" or straight, is a good thing, what verse, passage or concept in Scripture led you to believe that marriage is defined in a manner that would include two of the same sex? This is a question you refuse to answer. Boxed into a corner? You FLEE from answering this question. As all references to marriage in Scripture at the very least assumes a male/female definition, how can you possibly pretend that "gay" marriage would be a good thing, when no hint of such a possibility exists anywhere in Scripture?
what verse, passage or concept in Scripture led you to believe that marriage is defined in a manner that would include two of the same sex?
1. I do not think that is the correct usage of the Bible. It is not a rulings book where we look to find rulings on what is and isn't moral.
2. Further, marriage is not "defined" in the Bible. Ever. Anywhere. Not at all. Those who "find" such hard-line "definitions" are making up things not in the Bible. They are reading into the Bible what isn't there.
3. With that being said, I HAVE answered this question. Repeatedly.
"whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things." (Phil 4)
Clearly, a loving marriage is a good, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable thing. Clearly such things (being things we should think about, reflect upon, etc) are Godly things, good things. I think ALL good things are from and of God (also from the Bible, "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights," James 1). Given that good things are from God, I think that loving marriages - gay or straight - are good things and thus, Godly and God-blessed, in my opinion.
THAT is a reason, from the Bible, to support marriage, whether gay or straight.
This is a question you refuse to answer. Boxed into a corner? You FLEE from answering this question
Thus, I have proven I have NOT refused to answer the question. I have done so repeatedly. I do NOT flee from the question, I have dealt with it directly repeatedly.
That I do not use the Bible (or abuse the Bible) in the way you do, that I do not share your preconceived hunches about how to use/misuse the Bible does not mean that I "flee" from it.
Glad to clarify that mistake for you. Again.
So, in case you didn't get it, Marshall, I am not backed into a corner by that question that I've answered multiple times in multiple ways. Hardly. That you disagree with my understanding of Scripture or my reasoning does not mean I have not answered this question. That you disagree with my opinion does not make your opinion a fact.
At this point, I'm just mostly bored with the question, as it does nothing to further the conversation and it's been answered multiple times.
"Bored" does not equal "backed into a corner..."
:Not convenient. Not backed into a single corner. Just worn out."
Sure, whatever you say. It's just strange that you seem to get worn out just about the time in a thread where there are questions you haven't answered or when things that counter your position start to accumulate. For example, my earlier post on the economy, you came, made a comment or two (which apparently wore you out) then felt the need to go somewhere and rest because it was just too much for you to actually respond to my response to your comments. So if you want to play the "worn out" card that's fine. I'll bet you even believe it.
"I am intrigued though. "Backed into a corner..."?"
Again, in keeping with my answer every question you ask policy, I am responding to this. I'm not sure what exactly your question is, but I'm at least acknowledging that it appears to be a question.
"Is that really what you think some of your questions have done for me?"
In the absence of any answers to said question, I think that this is one reasonable conclusion that can be drawn. But, since you won't answer, I guess we'll never really know to any degree of objective certainty, will we?
"That I'm flummoxed by them and unable to address them?"
Not at all. I don't think you are unable to address them, I think you are unwilling to address them. I'm sure you can come up with lots of excuses and justification, but the bottom line fact is that you are unwilling to answer a significant number of the questions you are asked. Since I've seen the havoc that ensues when you respond based on "seems" and assumptions about what I think, I'm not going to speculate about your reasons. I'll just stick with the simple observable fact that you have repeatedly chosen not to answer questions (in large numbers for whatever reason you tell yourself) and leave it at that.
"You don't realize/think that it's just because it's a meaningless question or one where the answer should be obvious or has been answered a dozen times already?"
Again, I've learned from you how much trouble speculating about someones motivation causes, so I won't follow your poor example on that. However, the fact that you choose to disregard numerous questions because you have decided that they are "meaningless" says much about you willingness to actually engage in the type of adult respectful conversation you claim to want. How is it adult to decide that someone else's question or comment is "meaningless" and use that as an excuse to dodge or not engage? Why not seek clarification instead of making baseless assumptions?
"If you're so inclined, by all means, ask me one of these questions - your very best example - that you think have "backed me into a corner..." I'm curious what it is that has caused you to think that. Or not. Just curious."
Nice try. I love how you've attempted to turn this around so that it's not your refusal to answer questions or engage when your comments are rebutted at issue.
How about instead, you act like the adult you claim to be an engage in the two way conversations you claim to want.
Oh, and before you even start. Even if I was inclined to try to sift through the numerous unanswered questions you've left in your wake, I'm not going to play your petty games. First, this is my blog and I see no reason to let you make demands or set the rules. Second, many of my lines of questioning cannot be distilled down to one single question and I see no reason to try just to allow you an excuse for more of your self justifying delusions.
Dan,
Just for the record, you responded to Marshall's question, you did not answer it. To be fair, you have answered that question previously. Your actual answer has been (I'm paraphrasing) "There is no explicit or implicit support in scripture that suggests that marriage between two people of the same sex is a good thing.". It's an argument from silence with a fair degree of eisegesis and presumption thrown in.
Marshall,
The problem is that we can see that Dan has responded to, but not answered, your question. Or, at least, not answered the question you asked. So the question becomes, is this a tactic designed to obscure his true (logical fallacy, argument from silence) answer, or does he really not understand that he hasn't answered the question asked?
Just for the record: I clearly and directly answered Marshall's question. It's there for all to see. Here, I'll repeat it.
Question:
If you think marriage, "gay" or straight, is a good thing, what verse, passage or concept in Scripture led you to believe that marriage is defined in a manner that would include two of the same sex?
This question has been answered directly and in multiple ways. It is a demonstrably false claim to say I have not answered the question.
Answer 1:
With Scripture:
"whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things." (Phil 4)
Clearly, a loving marriage is a good, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable thing. Clearly such things (being things we should think about, reflect upon, etc) are Godly things, good things. I think ALL good things are from and of God (also from the Bible, "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights," James 1). Given that good things are from God, I think that loving marriages - gay or straight - are good things and thus, Godly and God-blessed, in my opinion.
Answer 2:
Explaining part of the problem with the question (this is like the "When did you stop beating your wife?" question - it IS answerable, but it requires some clarification, first):
Further, marriage is not "defined" in the Bible. Ever. Anywhere. Not at all. Those who "find" such hard-line "definitions" are making up things not in the Bible. They are reading into the Bible what isn't there.
So, I can not point to a verse that led me to believe that "marriage is defined in a manner..." of any sort, because marriage is never one time defined in the Bible. NO ONE can point to a verse that helped them understand how "the Bible" "defines" marriage because "the Bible" does not do this.
As a point of fact.
there's a difference between someone finding a verse in the bible and saying, "Here! This verse here IS HOW I THINK 'the bible' defines marriage..." and "the Bible" actually "defining" marriage.
Answer 3:
Again, explaining part of the problem with the question (this is like the "When did you stop beating your wife?" question - it IS answerable, but it requires some clarification, first):
I do not think that is the correct usage of the Bible. It is not a rulings book where we look to find rulings on what is and isn't moral.
So, I don't "decide" what is and isn't moral because there is a verse in the Bible that tells me it is or isn't moral. I decide what is and isn't moral using my God-given reasoning and weighing a number of factors, just as anyone else - you two included - does. But do biblical teachings influence what I think is and isn't moral? Yes, and I provided a small sampling of those verses for this topic.
The question has clearly been answered multiple times and in multiple ways, as directly as possible.
Is it truly the case that you do not see the very direct answer to that specific question in my answers?
If so, I don't know what else to do. It's just bizarre. In what way are these NOT direct answers to that question?
I would again point to the classic "When did you stop beating your wife?" question: It is easy enough to answer that question but it absolutely requires some unpacking because the question contains a flawed premise. Marshall's question contains flawed premises and unproven presumptions that had to be dealt with. I dealt with them and answered the question. Directly as possible, given the flawed premises and unproven presumptions.
"Answer #1", The scripture you use as a proof text does not once mention either explicitly or implicitly marriage, Fact #1. Fact #2, For you to twist your proof text into supporting "marriage" requires you to a) read something into the text that is not there, b) change the nature of the question from a question about "marriage" to an answer about "loving marriage". So, that's one answer that doesn't hold up, because it didn't answer the question asked.
"Answer #2" "Further, marriage is not "defined" in the Bible. Ever.", This statement is a statement of your opinion and is not a demonstrable fact. The only possibility of you supporting this claim is to apply a strict limited woodenly literal definition to the word "define" which is completely out of line with how flexibly you define words to fit your purposes. "They are reading into the Bible what isn't there." This may be the case, but even if it is, so are you. So in effect you are arguing that it is perfectly acceptable for you to draw conclusions from Biblical silence, while others are not allowed that luxury. The other problem with your preconception is that the Bible does speak often of marriage and what marriage is. The Bible is not a dictionary, I get that. But you cannot offer one instance in the Bible where marriage is referred to as anything but heterosexual. Nor can you offer anything from the Bible where homosexual sex of any type is referred to in terms that are anything but negative. Fact #2, you are offering an argument from silence (a logical fallacy), while mis-characterizing the counter argument and objecting to (using your characterization) your opponents offering the exact same type of argument you are. Fact#3, if you are going to base your entire position on an argument from silence and eisegesis, then you (if you wish to be rational and consistent) allow your opponents to place the same weight on such arguments as you do.
"Answer 3" by "small sample" you mean one verse that doesn't actually mention marriage. To reasonable people that is less of a "sample" of the verses that speak of homosexuality negatively. Since one argument you have used is that there are relatively few verses that speak negatively about homosexuality, that minimal number of verses diminishes the value of those verses. If you truly believe that more verses equals more support, why would you only offer one? Why would you offer that one in an out of context way? Why would you offer a verse that doesn't mention "marriage" as a support for "gay marriage"? Fact #4, it seems intellectually dishonest for you to engage in the exact same sort of thing you use to dismiss the arguments of those who disagree with you.
"The question has clearly been answered multiple times and in multiple ways, as directly as possible."
The question as it was asked has not been answered. I recall that you seem to get very upset when you claim that people answer you in a way that you decide is answering a question that you did not ask. Why would you believe that it is proper to hold others to a standard that you will not hold yourself to?
CONTD.
"Is it truly the case that you do not see the very direct answer to that specific question in my answers?"
As noted earlier your response has problems.
"If so, I don't know what else to do. It's just bizarre. In what way are these NOT direct answers to that question?"
As noted earlier, the question asked was pretty specific, you chose to answer a different question than the question that was asked.
As a refresher (with emphasis added)
"If you think MARRIAGE, "gay" or straight, is a good thing, what verse, passage or concept in Scripture led you to believe that MARRIAGE is defined in a manner that would include two of the same sex?"
The question is quite clear in specifying "MARRIAGE" nowhere are there any modifiers to the term "MARRIAGE". By adding a qualifier to the term "MARRIAGE" you, a) answered a question that was not asked and b) changed your previously expressed position that (paraphrase) "gay marriage is a good thing. So what is much more clear than your answer is the fact that you did not answer the question that was asked.
But I do want to thank you for dismantling your silly "Ask me one single question..." demand from earlier. You are correct in that questions do not often exist in a vacuum and that the context of a question is important. So you are correct that to take one question out of context and to ask it with out unpacking things around is is a foolish exercise which is why I refuse to engage in it.
"It is easy enough to answer that question but it absolutely requires some unpacking because the question contains a flawed premise."
Yet, you chose not to point out the "flawed premise" all the while basing your response upon an equally flawed premise. Again, it seems intellectually inconsistent to complain about a perceived "false premise" while using a "false premise" to support your response.
"Directly as possible, given the flawed premises and unproven presumptions."
Thanks for admitting that you did not respond directly. Yet your response is based on "the flawed premises and unproven presumptions." which you just assume to be true yet haven't bothered to support.
The intellectual inconsistency and dishonesty of the entire comment is staggering.
You clearly stated earlier that the reason you leave conversations is that you get "worn out". Often times your getting "worn out" coincides with lines of questioning that take you places you might not want to go. Or it coincides with someone pointing out the evidence (or data if you prefer) that casts doubt on your preconceptions. Or when your lack of answers (contrary to your claims) start to impede the conversation.
In my opinion, the reason why you have stayed involved in this thread is that up until know it wasn't threatening to you. In fact, I suspect that you felt that you might have the opportunity to twist my words into something other than what I said and allow you the opportunity to make some cheap rhetorical points. But none of that has worked, and now things are different. So, the question is "When will Dan get "Worn out"? I don't know, and maybe you'll prove me wrong and stay involved. I guess we'll just have to see.
I suspect that you will soon get "worn out" with this conversation as well. I suspect this because for the first time in the thread I have asked you questions. I suspect this because your "answer" has not been blindly accepted as is and there is data that supports the problems with your response. I suspect that your attempt to twist my words into something I did not say hasn't worked out the way you thought.
It won't surprise me if you find some excuse to disengage, that allows you to maintain your self image,
"Directly as possible, given the flawed premises and unproven presumptions."
Thanks for admitting that you did not respond directly. Yet your response is based on "the flawed premises and unproven presumptions." which you just assume to be true yet haven't bothered to support.
Q [asked of someone who, of course, has never beaten his wife]: Have you stopped beating your wife? Simple yes or no question... have you?
A: I have never in my life beaten my wife. The question is, therefore, flawed, as it presumes a reality that you have not established and, in fact, is not true.
That IS a direct and abundantly clear and factual answer to the question asked. It isn't completely direct (ie, it isn't a Yes/No answer) because the question had flawed premises.
Similarly, the question:
what verse, passage or concept in Scripture led you to believe that MARRIAGE is defined in a manner that would include two of the same sex?"
has a flawed/unproven premise or two...
1. That "marriage" is defined in the Bible. Factually (in spite of your claims), the Bible NEVER says, "And this is the definition of marriage now and forever more... This and ONLY this is what marriage is..." that does not happen. At all. It's not there. The question, then, has a flawed premise.
2. But not only the one flawed premise, it also presumes that the way we "know" if a marriage is good or not or if a behavior is good or not is by finding biblical support/opposition for it. That isn't how we know what is and isn't moral. It's a flawed - or at least entirely unsupported and rationally not sound - presumption.
Thus, given the flawed presumptions, I answered the question as best it can be answered, giving the reasons (not limiting it to non-existent biblical definitions or rulings) why I find marriage - gay or straight - to be a moral good.
That's as close an answer as anyone can give to the question, given its flawed nature.
And yes, repeating myself and apparently not being understood does get wearisome and, at some point, one questions how helpful it is to try to explain it yet another way. That is not irrational or inconsistent. Do you think?
"They are reading into the Bible what isn't there." This may be the case, but even if it is, so are you.
YES! Glory Hallelujah, Yes! That is exactly correct. Or at least almost correct. Well, okay, a little correct.
I read the Bible, use my reasoning, use my observation, consider known data and conclude, "It seems to me that marriage is a great and holy place for two people who love and are committed to one another to be. It is a beautiful and healthy place to express one's sexuality..." So, I'm not actually reading "into" the Bible that this is what God says. I'm not saying "God has said that marriage is a blessed thing for gay folk, we know this because 'the bible...'" So, I'm not actually reading a single thing INTO the text. I'm merely saying, "Given the stories and lessons we find happening to people in biblical stories, given what we know about human nature and love and sexuality, this is what I, DAN TRABUE, find to be reasonable..."
Marshall, on the other hand, appears to think, "No, it is a FACT that God would oppose gay folk marrying. We know this because 'the bible...'" THAT is reading something into the Bible and projecting something on to God what God has not said.
See the difference?
I recall that you seem to get very upset when you claim that people answer you in a way that you decide is answering a question that you did not ask. Why would you believe that it is proper to hold others to a standard that you will not hold yourself to?
I don't. Or provide data to support this claim. So far as I know, I have not done this. Certainly not intentionally.
To answer some more of your questions...
How is it adult to decide that someone else's question or comment is "meaningless" and use that as an excuse to dodge or not engage?
If a question has been answered already, how is it meaningful to answer it again?
It's rational, or "adult," if you prefer, to say, "This question has been answered - sometimes many times - and at some point, it's meaningless to answer it again... to answer it again would literally have no meaning or purpose." Do you disagree?
Similarly, if someone is asking what seems to be an obvious or rhetorical question (ie, "Do you know the meaning of scum?") it is a waste of time to answer it. of course, any adult who uses the word "scum" is very likely to know the meaning. The answer is an obvious "Yes, I know the meaning of the word..." therefore, since the answer is a foregone conclusion, it is meaningless - without purpose to answer it.
Do you disagree?
Why not seek clarification instead of making baseless assumptions?
It is not a baseless assumption to know that you know that I know the meaning of the word scum. It is a reasonable assumption. It is, in fact, a foregone conclusion, beyond even a reasonable assumption.
Beyond that, generally, I quite often do ask for clarification of meaning when someone says something confusing or whose answer seems obvious. It's why I would ask, "Is it truly the case that you do not see the very direct answer to that specific question in my answers?"
That is a clarifying question. I do it all the time, so the answer to your question is, "I DO seek clarification regularly." and, "I don't generally make baseless assumptions... of course, I'm human and could do so occasionally. But I do not see that I do this regularly at all."
Another rhetorical or pointless-sounding question, but one you asked, so I will address it...
You probably even believe that PP gets $500 million tax dollars to do mammograms, don't you?
I hold no beliefs about PP's budget, as it relates to mammograms or other areas. So, no.
"Is that really what you think some of your questions have done for me?"
In the absence of any answers to said question, I think that this is one reasonable conclusion that can be drawn. But, since you won't answer, I guess we'll never really know to any degree of objective certainty, will we?
It IS one conclusion that could be drawn. Or we could draw the conclusion that I can't read. Or that I'm a robot, not a real person. We could draw all manner of conclusions. But would it be reasonable? No, I don't see how.
I don't see how one can reasonably could draw this, as nothing in our experience has suggested you have asked a single question that has left me unable to answer that given question. Again: There is not one single question that you can point to that you have data that supports a theory that I've been "backed into a corner..." If you think you can, all you have to do is present that question and demonstrate your claim. Or, failing that, you can admit that you have no data on hand to make this as a "reasonable" conclusion.
1. Your assertion vis-avis defining marriage is a point I already dealt with and see no reason to re-visit absent some actual Biblical support for your presumptions.
2. No, this is your opinion of what you think others presume, in other words it is your presumption. The fact that you assert something does not make it true. So if you are going to continue to assert things, then you should support them
Further, you are the one who originally asserted that "Gay marriage is good", so the fact that Marshall is using your terminology is not something that you can blame him for.
"Thus, given the flawed presumptions,..."
The problem you have is that you haven't demonstrated that what you call "presumptions" are objectively either presumptions or flawed. This still ignores the fact that your entire premise is based on unsupported presumptions.
"That is not irrational or inconsistent. Do you think?"
It is obvious that, to you, what I think doesn't matter. You are content with unsupported assertions and arguments based on what you assume others think and what "seems" right to you. The problem, as I see it, is not that we can't understand what you are saying. It is that you don't want to/can't deal with anyone pushing back against the presumptions that underlie your hunches. So, when people don't just let you make unsupported assertions a fact it wears you out trying to come up with something that isn't there (support for your assertions). So, I'd suggest that it is irrational to answer a question that was not asked, then insist that you answered the question as asked. I'd suggest that it's not reasonable to expect others to accept your unsupported assertions, based on your preconceptions. I'd suggest that it's not rational to consistently blame others for everything without acknowledging the possibility that the problem might be with your preconceptions and the conclusions you base on them.
"See the difference?"
Sure, the biggest difference I see is that you insist that MA is "reading into" the text while not acknowledging that you are doing the same thing. The second biggest difference is that MA is taking texts that actually reference marriage and basing his conclusions on those passages that actually deal with the subject. You, on the other hand, base your entire argument on one passage that never even mentions marriage. So, yes I do see the difference, too bad you don't.
"It is not a baseless assumption to know that you know that I know the meaning of the word scum. It is a reasonable assumption. It is, in fact, a foregone conclusion, beyond even a reasonable assumption."
1. You are making unfounded assumptions based on your own preconceptions about why I asked you the question that bothers you so, why can you not even remotely consider the fact that you jumped to the wrong conclusion?
2. Even if your baseless assumption was correct, would it not be a more grace full approach to ask for clarification rather than to jump to a (wrong) conclusion based on your misinterpretation based on your unsupported presumptions?
"I don't. Or provide data to support this claim. So far as I know, I have not done this. Certainly not intentionally."
Given the fact that I am headed for work, and out of town this one will have to wait. I can't believe that you are actually suggesting that you have never gotten upset when you believe that someone has answered a question you didn't ask. You can either admit the facts, or wait patiently for quotes.
Even when I get quotes, you'll just make some excuse for why you meant something other than what the words you used said, but it will be interesting to see what excuse you come up with.
"To answer some more of your questions..."
Some more, but not all. All is just too much, right?
"If a question has been answered already, how is it meaningful to answer it again?"
Great question, why do you ask the same question multiple times before I have an opportunity to answer it.
But seriously, are you actually suggesting that when you answer a question once that one answer is perfect? Are you suggesting that it is impossible for someone to be confused after one of your answers? When did you become the judge of what is objectively "meaningful"?
"It's rational, or "adult," if you prefer, to say, "This question has been answered - sometimes many times - and at some point, it's meaningless to answer it again... to answer it again would literally have no meaning or purpose." Do you disagree?"
No, I do it often. The question is why don't you?
"Do you disagree?"
Yes. As I've pointed out numerous times your premise is incorrect. You are making an unsupported presumption based on a foundation-less assumption the basis for how you responded to that question. I know it's hard to admit the your presumptions and assumptions could possibly by wrong, but in this case they are. Why do you continue to ignore the fact that I have explained your misunderstanding multiple times, yet you continue to persist in your delusion?
"It's why I would ask, "Is it truly the case that you do not see the very direct answer to that specific question in my answers?""
Then why didn't you? Instead of your reasonable hypothetical above you chose to answer like this, "I have been quite clear, repeatedly, that I think there is a time for ranting. So, yes, if you think that someone's policies are causing harm and death, calling them scum is not unreasonable.". So instead of doing what you yourself call "reasonable", you chose a different path entirely. Once again, hoist on your own petard.
"That is a clarifying question. I do it all the time, so the answer to your question is, "I DO seek clarification regularly." and, "I don't generally make baseless assumptions... of course, I'm human and could do so occasionally. But I do not see that I do this regularly at all.""
Except that you chose a different path in the incident that has your panties in such a wad.
"I hold no beliefs about PP's budget, as it relates to mammograms or other areas. So, no."
Given your staunch defense of that organization and it's continued receipt of corporate welfare from the US taxpayers I'm shocked that you defend something about which you are so uninformed.
"It IS one conclusion that could be drawn. Or we could draw the conclusion that I can't read. Or that I'm a robot, not a real person. We could draw all manner of conclusions. But would it be reasonable?"
You are right, there are other conclusions that could be drawn. I ruled out all the stupid ones you suggested. But given your history over the past (especially the past couple of years), yes it is a reasonable conclusion to draw. It might not be right, but it is reasonable. I'd be willing to suggest that I can come up with multiple threads over the last couple of years where the last comment is either me asking a question, or me asking if you are going to respond to something. Again, no time now, but I'll be happy to add it to the other proof when I have time next week.
"No, I don't see how."
Of course you don't. You also don;t see how your presumptions and assumptions about my "scum" question could have been wrong either, so that doesn't speak well for you abilities on that front.
The problem you have is that you haven't demonstrated that what you call "presumptions" are objectively either presumptions or flawed. This still ignores the fact that your entire premise is based on unsupported presumptions.
When one makes a claim, there are premises that make up that claim. Marshall's questions presume some points:
what verse, passage or concept in Scripture led you to believe that MARRIAGE is defined in a manner that would include two of the same sex?"
1. He asked me to provide a verse (etc) from the Bible. If it doesn't matter if there is even one verse in the Bible dealing with, then why raise the question? WHY do I have to provide a Bible verse that made me think two people marrying one another when they love one another is a good thing? Marshall is presuming I need to make a biblical case. I reject that opinion as unbiblical and irrational.
2. He asked me to provide a verse that deals with the question of Marriage's definition. That presumes that there is a universal definition of marriage to be found in the Bible. There's not.
Where am I mistaken? Are those presumptions not present in the question?
"I don't see how one can reasonably could draw this, as nothing in our experience has suggested you have asked a single question that has left me unable to answer that given question."
I've never made the claim say I have.
"Again: There is not one single question that you can point to that you have data that supports a theory that I've been "backed into a corner..." If you think you can, all you have to do is present that question and demonstrate your claim."
Again, I've never made that claim that there is "one single question" that has done anything. Why would you expect me to back up a claim that I have not made. This seriously calls into question your ability to define what is "reasonable".
"Or, failing that, you can admit that you have no data on hand to make this as a "reasonable" conclusion."
The data is there, it's time that I don't presently have. As I said, I will gladly come up with a list of threads where you have bailed with unanswered questions. The problem you have is that while you feel perfectly comfortable assigning motives to other peoples actions I don't. So what I can prove, is your history of running away from threads where you refuse to answer questions. Why you have chosen to do so, is beyond me. But the fact that you have is really not even arguable. Which is why you will continue to argue.
While I said midnight earlier, I do have to go to work and so I do not know how much time I will have to deal with anything you might add later.
Having said that, try to be patient and I'll get to the two things that I don't have time for now when I get back.
Again, have a good vacation.
I am curious what you mean, then, by your wondering if you had "backed me into a corner..." with your questions? When you get a chance, if you are so inclined.
"When one makes a claim, there are premises that make up that claim. Marshall's questions presume some points:"
1. You haven't proven that MA has said presumptions.
2. You have conveniently ignored and/or downplayed the fact that IF your contention is true, then your claim has the same problems you claim MA has. Yet, if MA has presumptions at least the are more in line with historic Christian scholarship and Orthodox theology.
"If it doesn't matter if there is even one verse in the Bible dealing with, then why raise the question?"
Since when does the above question make any sense in the context of this conversation?
"WHY do I have to provide a Bible verse that made me think two people marrying one another when they love one another is a good thing?"
Because, you demanded that I/we ask you a question you actually said, "If you're so inclined, by all means, ask me one of these questions - your very best example - that you think have "backed me into a corner..." I'm curious what it is that has caused you to think that.". So MA did what you demanded, he asked you a question. The fact that you don't like the question isn't germain. The fact that you want to (after the fact) impose qualifications on the question is not germain.
You have to answer the question as asked, because you demanded that the question be asked. The problem remains that you have not answered the question as asked.
"He asked me to provide a verse that deals with the question of Marriage's definition. That presumes that there is a universal definition of marriage to be found in the Bible. There's not."
I've already addressed this, so until you can demonstrate that I have committed some significant error, I see no reason to simply agree with your unsupported assertions.
"Where am I mistaken?"
Your mistake comes when you impose your presumption of what MA was thinking on MA. You cannot prove your claim, and it is based on an assumption that you have made based on your presumptions about MA.
"Are those presumptions not present in the question?"
I don't see any reason for me to try to impose my assumptions about MA's intent on MA. He's capable of speaking for himself and I'll take him at his word if he does.
It has nothing to do with me liking or not liking the question. Regardless of the bad presumptions inherent in the question, I did answer it clearly and as directly as possible. That was the point. I was not backed into a corner by it. At all.
You think that isn't Marshall's presumption? By all means, ask him. But it is implied in the question as it is written. Words mean things. If he didn't mean what he said, if he wasn't trying to imply what his question presupposes, he can certainly clarify. I'm just dealing with the question as he asked it.
"Are those presumptions not present in the question?"
I don't see any reason for me to try to impose my assumptions about MA's intent on MA.
I'm not sure that you're understanding. I'm not really talking about Marshall's intent. I'm talking about the presumptions in the question, regardless of intent.
When someone asks "Have you stopped beating your wife?" THAT question has the implicit suggestion that the person is beating their wife. It doesn't matter what the person's intent is, in English, the presupposition is there. It's (at least for most people) an irrational question because it presumes beating where there was none. The question itself, as it is written, has the implied suggestion.
That's how English works. Do you understand that the wife beating question has the implication as part of the very question itself, regardless of the asker's intent?
When you get a chance.
Continuing on with the explanation of Marshall's logical fallacy, wiki says...
"the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious. Hence the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other."
In your case, Marshall, I do not agree with your presumptions (or, rather, the presumptions in your question, regardless if they are yours or not) so you have committed a logical fallacy, hence the reason for a less-than-direct answer. Regardless, I gave as direct and clear an answer as possible, given the question's fallacious nature. Now, if it's the case that Marshall merely misspoke and phrased his question incorrectly, he is welcome to re-ask it in a way that is not a logical fallacy, but I'm dealing with the question that I was asked, which question contained the implicit presumptions and thus, the fallacy.
The point stands: I was not backed into a corner because Marshall asked a fallacious question. I still answered it, and clarified the problem with the question, to boot.
Not exactly sure how I hope to resolve the issues forced upon us by Dan in this thread. I must note that some of what I will say would have been better left at Dan's blog, but he has indicated that he will not accept anything I say that does not conform with his position. This is typical of the leftist, and particularly of the leftist who supports and enables sexual immorality (in this case, homosexual behavior), so at this point I'm not likely to bother dealing with him at his blog, where his standards and policies are heavily weighted in his favor and never strict enough to hold his own self to them.
So, my question is considered problematic by Dan. What a surprise! Let's look at it yet again:
"If you think MARRIAGE, "gay" or straight, is a good thing, what verse, passage or concept in Scripture led you to believe that MARRIAGE is defined in a manner that would include two of the same sex?"
First, it must be said that as regards Dan avoiding questions, this is somewhat of a foundational question, from which other clarifying questions would arise. Answer this one, and we can get to the next which hopefully will result in a full understanding of how Dan could come to his clearly heretical positions. Perhaps, if Dan had the stones to drop pretense and defense, we might actually find some enlightenment on Scriptural teaching with regards to human sexuality. But Dan is stone free and so it is likely a fruitless endeavor. Nonetheless, I choose to pursue.
As to the question itself, Dan believes he has a solid means by which avoiding the question is justified. He claims that it is akin to the "When did you stop beating your wife question?" question...that it is based on presumptions he doesn't share. I've often warned Dan against the use of analogies as his choice of analogy is never truly analogous...even remotely. Such is the case here.
The "presumption" that threatens him isn't really a presumption at all. The true presumption is that in order to define a word for us by which we would learn how to behave as a child of God, it is required that God use particular words. In short, God must act in a manner that satisfies Dan's personal requirement for how things must work. Here, Dan demands that God say something along the lines of, "I, the Lord your God, thus declares the definition of 'marriage' to be...."
This is childish at best, and seriously and willfully dishonest at worst. Dan himself says, "Words mean things." (January 27, 2016 at 9:40 PM). Dan is taking a word that means something specific and asserting a meaning that cannot be supported as one that is considered anywhere in Scripture. He is doing this in a discussion about whether or not God would oppose SSM. If we can't rely on Scripture to inform us, then Scripture is worthless and we're on our own. This leads me to believe that it is good to beat the crap out of those with whom I might be in disagreement. One cannot argue this due to the fact that ""whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable..." is "good". Indeed, it is "excellent or praiseworthy".
I can list many reasons why I could say beating debate opponents are all of these things, but that would require that I do what Dan does with homosexual behavior...make up my own crap and pretend it aligns with Scriptural teaching. Instead, I prefer to look to Scripture to understand what is meant by that verse. What is "true, noble, right, pure, lovely" or "admirable" according to the teachings of Scripture? What is "excellent" or "praiseworthy"? To Dan, it is whatever is noble to him. Whatever is praiseworthy to him. He "reasons" these things he says, and as he tells me at his blog, he doesn't need the Bible to tell him what these things are, or what may be examples of these things in life. Aside from the fact that this is the very argument put forth by the typical atheist, it is but one more reason that concluding Dan is not really a Christian is a widely held position.
So, is "marriage" defined in Scripture. While not presenting us with an actual statement by God OR Jesus with the words "I hereby define 'marriage' thus...", it is childish to maintain that there is no definition at all. In regular speech, each thing we say to another carried assumed definitions in order to be understood by those to whom we speak. This is an issue Stan has often highlighted at his blog, especially, as it happens, when he is dealing with Dan. (I know. That's a starkly wild coincidence.) There must be some agreement as to what words meant when attempting to convey a point, a message, a teaching. With this in mind, I know I can state categorically that all Biblical references to "marriage", "family", "spouses", etc., at the very least imply the definition that Merriam-Webster still lists as the primary definition of "marriage" "1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law...". (Note also that the 2nd part of this definition..."(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage"---SSM mimics "marriage")
So, while there is no stated definition of marriage by God/Jesus, we can know that all references to marriage, family and the like suggest a clear definition. And this doesn't even need to keep in mind the reason Christ reminds us for why we were created man and woman.
But none of this matters. MY question asked Dan for reasons in Scripture for assuming that any other definition, specifically SSM, is even possible. And what does he do? He gives us Phil 4:8. This answer assumes that whatever is true, etc., is based upon what is true to Dan. I would insist Dan deal with the fact that what is true is that God has called homosexual behavior an abomination, and did so with no reference to any context or scenario in which it might take place. But he won't think on THAT. The question becomes, "true, noble, pure, lovely, right, etc.," according to Whom? If it isn't according God, and there is no verse that Dan can offer that suggests anything at all good, pure, lovely about any form of homosexual behavior, then my suggesting I have the freedom to beat the crap out people is equally valid when I define those terms as I prefer they be defined.
So, "Clearly, a loving marriage is a good, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable thing" requires some idea of what the word "marriage" means, and as this is based on a verse from Scripture, it demands that the definition have some Scriptural basis, some indication from Scripture as to what might be a Biblical definition. From what Bible DOES tell us, that statement is only true if "marriage" is the union of man and woman, not "any two people". It requires personal bias to make that statement true and inclusive of unions based on abominable behavior. Nothing whatsoever in Scripture can make that true. Nothing that Dan can provide. Thus, the question remains unanswered.
Dan's "Answer 3" (January 27, 2016 at 8:41 AM) is most telling, and is an admission that nothing in Scripture supports his heretical position. Let's look at it in detail:
"It is not a rulings book where we look to find rulings on what is and isn't moral."
Nothing could be further from the truth. Dan's own words contradict this time and time again. For example, when he speaks of "not laying up treasure on earth", to justify his not accumulating wealth, he is acting on what he regards as a rule for living. He cannot make the statement without being a liar one way or another. He will contradict himself anytime he insists a behavior or belief is "Christian". This is true whether he states it as a fact or merely as his "opinion". Even with regard to the latter, if he lives according to his "opinion" about what behavior or belief is "Christian", he is accepting what he regards as "opinion" as a rule he derived from Scripture.
But aside from the pure inanity of the statement itself, it lends credence to my point that there is nothing in Scripture that supports his heresy regarding SSM. A reasonable man, an honest one, would not insist the Bible isn't a rule book if there is support for a position taken. Why would he? It's a totally irrelevant statement (as well as false). A reasonable man would merely point to that which supports the position held. Dan tries with Philippians, but fails by virtue of his assumptions forced into the verse.
"So, I don't "decide" what is and isn't moral because there is a verse in the Bible that tells me it is or isn't moral. I decide what is and isn't moral using my God-given reasoning and weighing a number of factors..."
If "reasoning" includes that which cannot possibly be true, then my example of beating the crap out of people is valid. Dan still refuses to consider "according to whom" when using what for him passes for "reasoning". I can rationalize any behavior in which I choose to engage and without Scripture as a basis for determining what is or isn't moral, then I'm simply doing what I want regardless and in spite of what Scripture teaches. This is Dan in a nutshell, and as such he is rationalizing his inability to find anything in Scripture to support his positions. He CAN'T support his positions any other way. Thus, my ability to determine who is worthy of a beating, and my ability to actually beat such a person soundly, is a good and perfect gift, in my estimation, and from God. He has blessed me with the knowledge of knowing right from wrong and the authority to punish those who don't and praise Him and hallelujah!!!
Nonsense. If what is good and perfect has no relation to Scriptural teaching, and a union based on the perpetration of behavior God tells us is an abomination without providing any context or scenario in which it wouldn't be, then there is no Scriptural support whatsoever for SSM and Dan has abjectly failed to answer the question. Worse, he has answered the question with abject lies.
"But do biblical teachings influence what I think is and isn't moral?"
No. NO it doesn't. Not without first injecting meaning that cannot possibly exist in your ambiguous evidence in light of the totality of Scriptural teaching. Indeed, one must ignore what Scripture teachings about what is good, noble, pure, perfect, etc., in order to even pretend that the verses Dan cites are actually supportive of the pro-SSM position, and thus, do not stand as an answer to the question I posed.
Thus we are seeing clearly that Dan doesn't answer questions, but throws any crap against the wall hoping something sticks. But he can't truly answer the question, and worse, he cannot support his heresies.
"Marshall's question contains flawed premises and unproven presumptions that had to be dealt with."
I think I have comprehensively shown that this statement is false at best, if not an outright lie. The premise of my question is merely that Dan cannot provide ANY Scriptural basis for pretending that God would bless same-sex "marriages", and that there is quite enough in the few verses that touch on the subject of homosexual behavior that clearly indicate that such blessings from God are not possible. Dan's weak offerings of Philippians and James do nothing to support his position without more of his subjective and equally unsupportable falsehoods about word definitions.
In the meantime, I have demonstrated that my "premises and presumptions" are quite sufficiently supportable and as they are clearly understood as they have been for centuries, they stand as proofs and evidences of my position and do so firmly against the desperate corruptions to which Dan clings so fervently.
So, as Craig has agreed (along with so many others)...
"The problem is that we can see that Dan has responded to, but not answered, your question."
This is routine. This is his tap-dancing style. This is his strategy for avoiding what everyone who calls himself a Christian must do...putting the teachings of Scripture first, as Scripture is where we have our most definitive revelation of God's will and nature. "Reasoning" fails when it conflicts with the teachings of Scripture. "Reasoning" is lying when it conflicts with the teachings of Scripture. Dan's a liar. A heretic. An apostate. A reprobate. A Christian? By what standard? Only by Dan's. Not good enough.
The "presumption" that threatens him isn't really a presumption at all.
sigh. Nu-uh? Is that all you got? Why are your question's presumption not presumptions at all? Why is it different than the wife-beater fallacy?
Clearly, there are presumptions in the question as you asked. If you want to remove the presumptions and ask another question, feel free. In the meantime, I have exactly, factually and specifically answered that question as directly as possible.
"sigh. Nu-uh? Is that all you got?"
Clearly my last five comment posts prove "nu-uh" isn't even part of my response. You're obviously trying to pretend what is common to you is being perpetrated here by me. Like I told you in a previous post at your blog, you forget that what has been said is still available to be read. This time, in the same thread.
"Why are your question's presumption not presumptions at all?"
Because I state fact. YOU "presume" no definition exists in Scripture regarding what marriage is simply because there are no words to the effect of "I, the Lord your God, hereby define marriage thus..." Honest, honorable men who can read and reason know that the consistent manner in which that which relates to marriage in Scripture clearly demonstrate only one possible conclusion...that marriage is defined as a one man/one woman proposition. Only those who defend sexual immorality would pretend that such a definition is only a presumption.
"Why is it different than the wife-beater fallacy?"
Your wife beater question is crafted to compel an admission to that which isn't true. A good question for a liar to pose, but not one that one who doesn't beat one's wife is compelled to give the time of day.
My question merely hopes to elicit from you evidence from Scripture that can in some way justify holding the heretical position you do, that God would bless the union of two whose union is marked by the engagement in abomination...something that would suggest God has allowed for some context or scenario in which such behavior is NOT an abomination.
If there is any presumption highlighted in my question, it is yours...that God approves of engaging in abomination simply because those who are so engaged profess love for each other. The presumption is yours, not mine.
"In the meantime, I have exactly, factually and specifically answered that question as directly as possible."
Ironically, you have answered the question basing the answer on unproven, unsubstantiated and baseless presumption. These include false assertions about the definitions of the words "marriage" and "love", neither of which are aligned with anything Scripture says about them.
"I am curious what you mean, then, by your wondering if you had "backed me into a corner..." with your questions? When you get a chance, if you are so inclined."
Simply, that when you are asked questions that you don't answer, then when you are pressed to answer the unanswered questions, your recent tendency has been to make excuses and leave the conversation or to simply stop commenting. You also tend to do this when your premises are questioned or demonstrated to be faulty or when you offer "proof" which is shown to be less than you suggested it was. You also tend to ignore things offered in response to demands for "proof"
So, since you are usually so adamant about how you virtually always answer questions, and you always demand "proof" from others that you don't provide for yourself, it seems like a reasonable conclusion to draw that when you run away from on ongoing conversation with no answers, no responses, and no explanation that you have determined that you are in an untenable position and that your best strategy is to leave and act as if nothing has happened.
Usually when I leave a conversation that is ongoing, I am quite clear and specific about why I am leaving and trying to tie up loose ends. That seems like a respectful way to act and to acknowledge that I have left the conversation for a particular reason.
So, when you just disappear in the midst of unanswered questions, with no explanation, then it seems reasonable to draw a connection.
Maybe if you tried showing a modicum of respect, answered questions, and acknowledged when others respond to your questions and demands it would be reasonable to come to another conclusion.
"Regardless of the bad presumptions inherent in the question,..."
You assume that there are a) presumptions and b) that they are bad presumptions. In the absence of proof of your claim, this is simply an excuse,
"I did answer it clearly and as directly as possible."
I'm sure you think you did. That doesn't eliminate the fact that your "answer" is based on your "presumptions and assumptions" about the nature of the question, which renders your answer about as worthless as you consider the question. You also did not answer the question that MA actually asked. You answered the question that you presumed he asked. There is a significant difference.
"That was the point. I was not backed into a corner by it. At all."
You say that, but you didn't answer the question that was asked, you answered a similar question.
Further, I never made a claim that this particular question backed you into a corner. I pointed out that you did not answer the question as asked.
You see, when you don't answer the actual questions you are asked, then answer a different question based on your assumptions and presumptions, then use your unsupported assumptions and presumptions in your "answer", it at least open the door to concluding that the question as asked was problematic for you.
"You think that isn't Marshall's presumption?"
I don't know and from my perspective I don't really care. I see no reason to make (as you have clearly done) assumptions about what MA may or may not presume.
"I'm not really talking about Marshall's intent. I'm talking about the presumptions in the question, regardless of intent."
Since you haven't demonstrated the existence of presumptions, then you are simply basing your response on presumptions and assumptions of your own. If MA basing his question on presumptions is not appropriate, then you basing your response on presumptions and assumptions is equally inappropriate.
" Do you understand that the wife beating question has the implication as part of the very question itself, regardless of the asker's intent?"
I understand that the "wife beating" analogy is just one more in a string of poor analogies you've chosen. So, please stop using it.
"Presupposed by the question itself, regardless of intent. And is, thus, a logical fallacy. See?"
Bad analogy, stop using it, see?
The argument from silence is also a logical fallacy which you seem to rely on quite often, so why pick on one logical fallacy not all of them?
"The point stands: I was not backed into a corner because Marshall asked a fallacious question. I still answered it, and clarified the problem with the question, to boot."
As long as your "point" is based on what you presume and assume than it cannot stand.
"the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious. Hence the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other."
You still haven't demonstrated that MA's question objectively contained presupposition, so this whole line of self justification is just getting pointless.
Further, when you use an out of context passage of scripture to support your claim, then it is logical to conclude that you believe that scripture does validate your position, therefore asking you to do what you have already tried (and failed) to do seems to be reasonable.
"Why are your question's presumption not presumptions at all?"
1. Until you can logically and objectively demonstrate that MA's questions is factually based on presumptions, you need to stop asserting that it is.
2. Until you can demonstrate that somehow MA's "presumptions" are problematic and that yours are not, you need to stop asserting that MA is making presumptions.
"sigh. Nu-uh? Is that all you got?"
This is exactly the kind of statement that draws people to conclude that you get backed into a corner. MA spent multiple comments specifically addressing your points and you summarily dismiss his response with the derisive comment above. It's almost enough to make one think that you actually have no cogent response and have decided that ridicule and derision will make people forget your lack of actual response. This is something that you have done enough recently to make me conclude that it is simply a tactic you use to avoid things that you see as problematic.
You would actually have more credibility of you at least made an attempt to seriously deal with peoples responses to you, instead of simply assuming that dismissing them with derision is the same thing as a coherent counter.
"I have exactly, factually and specifically answered that question as directly as possible."
You may have answered a question, but you haven't answered the one that was asked.
And which question do you think was answered?
The points remain (and this is why people give up talking with you all, Craig, you just don't seem to get reasonable answers and you can only go back and RE-answer questions so many times before you just give up):
1. Some questions have presumptions built into them.
2. The "wife beating" question gives an example of this, it DOES have a presumption built into it. Do you disagree with that reality?
2a. When the man answers that question, NOT with a Yes/No, but with "I never beat my wife, your question has faulty presumptions," he IS answering it directly. Do you disagree with that reality?
3. Similarly, if someone asks you to provide the place in the Bible where you find another definition of marriage, it is presuming that there is ANY definition of marriage in the Bible, when as a point of fact, there isn't.
3a. When Marshall asks "what verse, passage or concept in Scripture led you to believe that MARRIAGE is defined..." the question is presuming that there is one This and Only This definition of marriage exists in the Bible.
3b. When I point out that there is no such definition in the Bible, I am clarifying that presumption, just like the guy who clarifies that he never did beat his wife.
3c. Thus, that IS a direct and clear answer to the question, every bit as clear as the "I never beat my wife, so your question's presumptions are faulty" is a direct and clear answer.
Simply saying "No it wasn't" or "that's a faulty analogy" isn't enough.
1. Until you can logically and objectively demonstrate that MA's questions is factually based on presumptions, you need to stop asserting that it is.
Did this. I'll do it again: When one asks you to provide the verse in the Bible that defines marriage in a way that you think is acceptable, it presumes there is a definition of marriage in the Bible. I don't think there is because, factually, there simply isn't.
2. Until you can demonstrate that somehow MA's "presumptions" are problematic and that yours are not, you need to stop asserting that MA is making presumptions.
The bible is not a dictionary and no where has God or Mr Webster said that HERE is a definition of marriage for all times and places, or even HERE is a definition for marriage in this culture. It just doesn't exist.
Thus, the presumptions within Marshall's questions are problematic from the point of view of reality and fact.
Look at it this way, if someone asks you to provide the verse in the bible where you get justification that God objectively defines slavery is defined... however, you can't because slavery is not defined in the Bible, the Bible is not a dictionary and even if you lift out a verse that makes you think slavery can be defined a certain way is not objective evidence that it is defined that way.
Marshall's presumptions are problematic because the Bible is not a dictionary and his interpretations of it are not authoritative.
Hope you had a restful vacation.
Put another way...
Until you can demonstrate that somehow MA's "presumptions" are problematic and that yours are not, you need to stop asserting that MA is making presumptions.
Marshall's question "what verse, passage or concept in Scripture led you to believe that MARRIAGE is defined...?" presumes at least two things:
1. That we can find a definition of marriage in the Bible (and one that is binding, at that) when it doesn't.
2. That we can reasonably pick verses out of the Bible and that is how we should decide what is and isn't moral.
I reject both premises, thus, I answered the question directly by pointing out the factual problem with the premises and answering why I think marriage IS a good thing, gay or straight, as I have oft done.
Is it the case that you do not see the premises in the question?
IF someone does not accept the theory that "We ought to find answers to moral questions by finding a line supporting or opposing it in the Bible," then why would one point to a verse in the Bible regarding a behavior?
Regardless, I DID point to passages that point to moral philosophies as to why I support marriage for all, so to say I did not point to a verse in the Bible to directly answer Marshall's question is also just factually faulty.
when you use an out of context passage of scripture to support your claim, then it is logical to conclude that you believe that scripture does validate your position
I believe in the philosophy that those behaviors/actions that promote good, healthy, loving, respectful relationships and that promote healthy communities, that such behaviors/actions ARE inherently good and moral. I pointed to passages that generally agree with this philosophy. I do NOT point to them to say, "Look, here is a passage that promotes this, therefore, it's morally good..." or that "scripture validates [the] position," but rather believe it is self-evident that this philosophy is good and acknowledge that even our ancient forebears appeared to agree with that line of moral thinking. It is, therefore, not out of context from the point of view that I'm coming from. One MIGHT could make the case if one were looking to the Bible as a rulings book, in the manner that at least Marshall appears to be doing, but that's not me.
I don't see what you all are basing your arguments upon other than perhaps insisting that we argue based on your premises alone. But that isn't how reasonable discussion works.
"And which question do you think was answered?"
I have no idea what you are talking about.
"The points remain"
Yes, you've made points. But none of them have been proven, just asserted.
1. I'm sure some do, but you haven't proven that the specific one in question does.
2. I agree that the "wife beating" question seems to have a presumption built in, but it's still a bad analogy since you haven't proven your claim. Just because you can show a question with a built in presumption, doesn't demonstrate that MA's question has a presumption.
2a. Sure, but so what.
3. But, MA didn't ask you to provide a place in the Bible where there is a "definition of marriage". Which buttresses my single point, that you answered a question that was not asked.
3a. NO it is not. He is asking you a specific question and trying to limit it.
3b. So what. The question was not "Does a definition of marriage exist?". The question was, (I'm paraphrasing) "What in the Bible has led you (Dan) to conclude that marriage is defined as X,Y, or Z?".
3c. The problem is that you have not proven (only assumed) that a presumption exists. Until you can prove the presumption, then there is no reason to assume that you are correct in your presumption. Simply making an assertion is nothing.
"Simply saying "No it wasn't" or "that's a faulty analogy" isn't enough."
I haven't simply said either of those things. I have written numerous comments detailing the problems with your presumptions. It's not my problem that you have chosen to ignore and not deal with those comments.
"Did this. I'll do it again: When one asks you to provide the verse in the Bible that defines marriage in a way that you think is acceptable, it presumes there is a definition of marriage in the Bible. I don't think there is because, factually, there simply isn't."
1. All you've done is to make an unsupported assertion.
2. I've pointed out earlier that MA's question did not ask how the Bible defined marriage, it asked what Biblical support you had for your definition of marriage.
3. Both MA and I have pointed out that while there is not a "definition" of marriage that is stated in the same form that one would find in a dictionary, there are numerous instances where multiple Biblical authors (including Jesus) describe marriage and in 100% of those marriage is described as being between male and female. So, if one adheres to your arbitrary and artificial standard there are a number of things that the Bible doesn't "define" but does teach. You claim that the Bible requires or teaches that Christians must embrace a strict pacifism, yet nowhere in the Bible is pacifism ever "defined". In fact that term is never used. So, if one is to be consistent in applying your arbitrary subjective standard, then a number of your pet doctrines come under question because they are not defined.
"The bible is not a dictionary and no where has God or Mr Webster said that HERE is a definition of marriage for all times and places, or even HERE is a definition for marriage in this culture. It just doesn't exist."
Yet, MA never asked you for a Biblical "definition" of marriage. He specifically asked you about Biblical support for your definition of marriage. Perhaps this explains your confusion.
"Thus, the presumptions within Marshall's questions are problematic from the point of view of reality and fact."
Thus, you can't simply make an assertion then just repeat the assertion when it's validity is questioned.
"Look at it this way, if someone asks you to provide the verse in the bible where you get justification that God objectively defines slavery is defined... however, you can't because slavery is not defined in the Bible, the Bible is not a dictionary and even if you lift out a verse that makes you think slavery can be defined a certain way is not objective evidence that it is defined that way."
Why do you need to continue to introduce this extraneous crap? The Bible is pretty specific in "defining" what the Israelite theocracy was supposed to do in relation to treatment of slaves. The problem is that no one is suggesting that one look to the Bible for an all encompassing "definition" of slavery. If you could focus on the topic at hand it would be helpful.
"Marshall's presumptions are problematic because the Bible is not a dictionary and his interpretations of it are not authoritative."
MA has never asserted that the Bible is a dictionary. Nor has he asserted that his interpretations are authoritative. Given those two irrefutable facts, why would you make such ridiculous and nonsensical assertions.
Or, phrased differently, MA's presumptions are problematic, but Dan's presumptions are not.
Either way, it's just blowing more smoke to obscure the discussion.
Marshall's question "what verse, passage or concept in Scripture led you to believe that MARRIAGE is defined...?"
OK, just take a look at the quote provided. Where does MA explicitly or implicitly refer to any definition but yours. Had he asked you to provide a Biblical definition of marriage, I'd agree with you. But what he explicitly asked was, "What Biblical support can you offer that supports marriage between two people of the same sex?". Clearly he "presumes" that you "define" marriage as including two people of the same sex. (I'm not sure that's really a presumption since you've been pretty clear that you think God "blesses" these "marriages") Just as clearly he is asking that you provide support for what "led you to believe", not for a Biblical definition. The fact that after having this pointed out to you numerous times and you still insist that your presumptions and assumptions are correct even though they go against the plain reading of the question calls into question your ability to interpret English, as well as your ability to acknowledge the possibility that you might possibly have made an error.
"1. That we can find a definition of marriage in the Bible (and one that is binding, at that) when it doesn't."
Again, the quote you provided is clear that he was asking for support of your concept of marriage, not a Biblical definition.
"2. That we can reasonably pick verses out of the Bible and that is how we should decide what is and isn't moral."
Just because virtually the entirety of Christianity believes that Bible verses do provide support for deciding what is and isn't moral means that one person (Dan) can simply declare otherwise. As I pointed out earlier, this arbitrary standard cuts both ways. It undercuts many of the doctrines you embrace, and it can be used to justify virtually anything. This doesn't even touch on the fact that you can't even objectively define "moral".
"I reject both premises, thus, I answered the question directly by pointing out the factual problem with the premises and answering why I think marriage IS a good thing, gay or straight, as I have oft done."
OK, as long as you "reject" something that decides it. If you "reject" a "premise" then it's just automatically invalid simply because you "reject" it. How does one "reject" something one can't prove exists.
Or, you "reject" MA's premise while substituting it for one of your own why is your premise any more valid than anyone else's.
You don;t seem to grasp this contradiction at the base of your entire argument. You cannot assert that premise A is problematic and must be rejected without demonstrating why. You also cannot assert that premise B is not problematic and must be accepted simply because you say so. You can't have it both ways.
"Is it the case that you do not see the premises in the question?"
The only possible premise I see in the question as originally asked is the premise that you believe that the term "marriage" is a term that includes both same sex as well as opposite sex couples. But as I've pointed out, I'm not sure that is a premise so much as a summary of your position.
"IF someone does not accept the theory that "We ought to find answers to moral questions by finding a line supporting or opposing it in the Bible," then why would one point to a verse in the Bible regarding a behavior?"
If by "someone" you mean yourself, then the better question is why do you continually offer verses from the Bible as answers to moral questions if you don;t accept the "theory" (more accurately Historic Christian Theology and Doctrine) that the Bible contains said answers. So, why would you do what you claim is pointless.
Again, this leaves aside your lack of ability to objectively define "moral" all the while presuming that there is an objective "moral" standard.
"Regardless, I DID point to passages that point to moral philosophies as to why I support marriage for all, so to say I did not point to a verse in the Bible to directly answer Marshall's question is also just factually faulty."
To be factual, you pointed to one passage (not "passages") that does not ever even refer to marriage. Even if one could stretch your one cherry picked passage to include "marriage" you then have the problem that your proof text contradicts what you offer it to prove. If you wish to be consistent, then one cannot place arbitrary, ex post facto limits on things that are "good". Either "marriage" in general as good, or it is not. You can't use one verse which says that there some undefined things that are objectively good to say that it supports only a portion of what you claim it does.
Using your proof text one can only conclude that "marriage" is good (without placing limits on marriages). One cannot conclude that "some marriage is good" or that "good marriage is good" based on your single out of context proof text.
So, we now have a case of at least one clear cut and demonstrable lie (I DID point to passages...), are you so desperate that you feel the need to resort to lies.
"I believe in the philosophy that those behaviors/actions that promote good, healthy, loving, respectful relationships and that promote healthy communities, that such behaviors/actions ARE inherently good and moral."
I do not doubt that you believe the above. I do not doubt that you believe that you are qualified to make determinations about what is "inherently good and moral". I also have no doubt that you cannot objectively define what is "inherently good and moral". I also have no doubt that you cannot provide any explicit or implicit Biblical support for your belief. (I'm not asking you to, just pointing out the obvious) The problem inherent in your belief is that it is and can only be yours. You have no basis to assert that any action is objectively (or inherently)good or moral. You can't use your belief to provide an objective definition or definition of "good" or "moral".
So, while I don't question the fact that you hold the above belief (hunch, opinion), I do question how you presume to impose your belief on others, or how you expect others to agree with or affirm your believe in the absence of anything more substantive than "I believe..."
"I pointed to passages that generally agree with this philosophy."
No, you pointed to one passage that you presume agrees with your philosophy. I want to stress again that we're talking about your personal "philosophy", and not an objective universal moral code.
"I do NOT point to them to say, "Look, here is a passage that promotes this, therefore, it's morally good..." or that "scripture validates [the] position," but rather believe it is self-evident that this philosophy is good and acknowledge that even our ancient forebears appeared to agree with that line of moral thinking."
"Self evident" to you does not translate into anything beyond what you presume supports your own personal moral "philosophy". I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't believe it, I'm just suggesting that to assert this as anything beyond your personal "philosophy" without providing some sort of reasonably specific and objective support is not compelling in the least,
"It is, therefore, not out of context from the point of view that I'm coming from. One MIGHT could make the case if one were looking to the Bible as a rulings book, in the manner that at least Marshall appears to be doing, but that's not me."
OK, it's not out of context as long as you impose your own personal philosophy to determine what is and is not in context.
"I don't see what you all are basing your arguments upon other than perhaps insisting that we argue based on your premises alone. But that isn't how reasonable discussion works."
I can't speak for MA, but I haven't really made any arguments in this thread, I've simply pointed out the weaknesses and inconsistencies in yours.
I do think I understand a bit better now. You really have no interest in any sort of coherent universal code or authority, you are perfectly satisfied to believe what you have chosen to believe. I have no problem with you doing exactly that. Where it becomes problematic is when you presume that your singular personal belief or philosophy can somehow be applied to anyone outside of you.
As far as I'm concerned, there is nowhere else to go with this as long as you can't/won't offer any sort of reasonably objective proof of your assertions, can't/won't deal with the inherent contradiction in your (MA's presumptions=bad, Dan's presumptions=good)entire argument, and you can't/won't constructively deal with the numerous comments laying out the flaws in your underlying premise.
Look, as long as all you want from the Bible is to be able to pick out some out of context verses that you can try to suggest support your personal philosophy and belief system, then we are speaking two completely different languages.
If you actually read my comments you might notice that I have phrased a number of statements as questions, but did not follow them up with a question mark. I did this intentionally because as you are showing less and less willingness to answer questions I did not want to overly burden you with additional questions.
You really have no interest in any sort of coherent universal code or authority
I, of course, believe that GOD is the universal authority. The problem that many conservatives have is that God has not given you an authoritative position to speak on God's behalf and yet many on that side want to pretend that they can speak authoritatively, as if their interpretations of the Bible = God's Word. But that is hubris at best and blasphemy at worst.
you are perfectly satisfied to believe what you have chosen to believe. I have no problem with you doing exactly that. Where it becomes problematic is when you presume that your singular personal belief or philosophy can somehow be applied to anyone outside of you.
I believe in making our cases based on the best we can figure things out, but no, you nor I have no authoritative and objective Source to speak for God, so we do our reasoning on matters of morals the best we can, but imperfectly. That, too, is just reality.
Do you disagree? Do you think you have the ability to speak authoritatively and perfectly as to what is and isn't moral and your judgment (whether it's your opinion of morality or your opinion of what God wants or your opinion of what the Bible is teaching that God wants) is beyond reproach?
Do tell.
1. MA did not ask you for a Biblical definition of marriage, he asked for Biblical support for your definition of marriage. Two different things.
2. You keep saying this. Unfortunately, in practice you actually do.
3. What you think really doesn't seem to be the issue. You wanted a question, MA asked you a question. You can't (after the fact) try to put limits on the question. He asked a question, you answered a different question.
As for your Roman numeral assertions, yes you've made those assertions before and I see nothing gained by you simply repeating yourself.
So, if you would like to refute the numerous flaws in your position I welcome you to do so at as much length as you need. Unless you r idea of refuting things is to simply make the same unsupported assertions over and over again and expect them to be accepted simply because you repeat them over and over.
If you would like to address the questions asked of you, again, take all the time and length you need to do so.
But, I see absolutely no value in you continuing to repeat the same unsupported assertions over and over while choosing not to address the problems.
In closing, if you are interested in a two way respectful conversation I welcome you to engage in one. If all you have is simply repeating your unsupported assertions as if repetition somehow confers value to them, then please don't waster your valuable time doing something that is just going to get deleted.
"I, of course, believe that GOD is the universal authority."
Ok, whatever.
"The problem that many conservatives have is that God has not given you an authoritative position to speak on God's behalf and yet many on that side want to pretend that they can speak authoritatively, as if their interpretations of the Bible = God's Word."
I'm sure there are a few who legitimately do so, but for you to make this a one sided slam against conservatives while ignoring the legions of "progressive christians" who are perfectly happy to throw out "thus saith the Lord" or the converse "Since God doesn't exist there is no possible way he could have said anything", is just one more instance of your intellectual inconsistency.
"But that is hubris at best and blasphemy at worst."
I agree, if you can actually provide an example of someone saying what you claim. I'd also suggest that for "progressive christians" to make authoritative claims that God doesn't exist or that the vast majority of the NT is fiction is equally an example of hubris and blasphemy, but why let consistency get in the way of an unsupported broad brush attack on conservatives.
"I believe in making our cases based on the best we can figure things out, but no, you nor I have no authoritative and objective Source to speak for God, so we do our reasoning on matters of morals the best we can, but imperfectly. That, too, is just reality."
You keep saying this and you probably believe it in theory, unfortunately you don;t live out what you claim in theory.
"Do you disagree?"
I disagree with your theory about starting with your personal beliefs and opinions, then attempting to shoehorn some random verse into support for them.
"Do you think you have the ability to speak authoritatively and perfectly as to what is and isn't moral and your judgment (whether it's your opinion of morality or your opinion of what God wants or your opinion of what the Bible is teaching that God wants) is beyond reproach?"
Since I've never claimed to do anything you suggest, why would you even ask such a ridiculous question.
I answered those in order to keep my record intact (I realize I still need to provide you with some evidence about something from earlier but I've invested too much time in writing long detailed comments which you've ignored that that will have to wait) in terms of answering virtually every single question you ask.
So, if you would like to refute the numerous flaws in your position I welcome you to do so at as much length as you need. Unless you r idea of refuting things is to simply make the same unsupported assertions over and over again and expect them to be accepted simply because you repeat them over and over.
If you would like to address the questions asked of you, again, take all the time and length you need to do so.
But, I see absolutely no value in you continuing to repeat the same unsupported assertions over and over while choosing not to address the problems.
In closing, if you are interested in a two way respectful conversation I welcome you to engage in one. If all you have is simply repeating your unsupported assertions as if repetition somehow confers value to them, then please don't waster your valuable time doing something that is just going to get deleted.
"perfectly"
So now you're claiming perfection, really. But it's conservatives who are full of hubris.
You lie when you say that I've claimed perfection. Quite the opposite and if you had an ability to understand others, you'd know it. You lie, slander, give false witness on many fronts and you appear to embrace ignorance and deny reality on others. Repent, brother.
Repent, apologize and restore the deleted answers you requested to your questions and admit the mistake/error/sin on your part or not, that's on you. But don't pretend to be anything but one who lies and distorts and dodges the holes in your claims in the meantime.
You're the one who claimed to have answered the question "perfectly", not me, I was just making a little joke. You claim to have answered "perfectly" yet accuse others of "hubris", I find that amusing and decided to respond in kind.
"You lie, slander, give false witness on many fronts and you appear to embrace ignorance and deny reality on others. Repent, brother."
Please show one instance where I have done any of the above. But, I guess you and your double standard is perfectly comfortable with your own lies. It's that whole log/speck problem. Why should I repent, when you won't?
"Repent, apologize and restore the deleted answers you requested to your questions and admit the mistake/error/sin on your part or not, that's on you. But don't pretend to be anything but one who lies and distorts and dodges the holes in your claims in the meantime."
Wow, just wow. I delete some off topic repetitious rambling and you break out the personal attacks.
I guess you just make false claims, you don't substantiate them.
Even though this last comment is not engaging in any sort of respectful, adult, back and forth conversation, and is in fact quite the opposite. I believe that I will leave it as an example of exactly what brought this on in the first place.
You have decided that you should accuse me of engaging in exactly the behavior you engage in as a way to divert attention from the fact that you checked out of this conversation in any meaningful way quite some time ago. To say that my answering virtually every question you've asked, my responding to your comments in much greater length and detail that you have to mine, that you refuse to acknowledge let alone engage with the flaws in your arguments, that you clearly and unambiguously lied somehow equates to me being "one who lies and distorts and dodges the holes in your claims in the meantime." is simply ludicrous.
Once again, we get to the very heart of the matter, you demand that others behave in ways that you do not yourself behave. You cloak your self in this false piety and self justification instead of simply engaging in a respectful adult back and forth exchange.
Once again, you resort to personal attack.
Had you posted the two comments I deleted before I laid out what would happen if you simply continued to repeat the same old stuff, I would not have deleted them. However, you posted them after I had made myself clear about the circumstances under which the conversation could continue. The fact that you either did not read my warning, or thought that you could ignore my warning with impunity is not my problem. I was polite and respectful, you chose to test the limits. I see no reason to reward your behavior, by either restoring or apologizing for doing exactly what I warned you I would do. You took a chance and you lost.
While I doubt I'll get answer, I can only assume that you support that actions of your governor in shutting down a Planned Parenthood location because it was in violation of state law, would I be correct?
It was not in violation of a state law. The Governor misrepresented reality to attack them, by all appearances. They did what they were told to by the state.
IF they broke laws, then they should be arrested. They do not appear to have broken a single law, unless there's news I have not heard of. The last data I heard leaned towards the governor misrepresenting the case, the governor doing the wrong thing. In that case, HE should be held accountable and HE should correct his false claim.
Do you support that if he did, indeed, falsely charge them with crimes? Or is lying okay as long as it's your side?
The latest news I have seen on this story:
"Emails last year between a Planned Parenthood lawyer and the top state official then in charge of licensing health clinics show that the official told the organization it must open without the license in order to get one.
That's because the state won't issue a final license until a state inspector makes an unannounced visit to the facility and inspects it after it has opened for business, Maryellen Mynear, the former inspector general with the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, said in an email to Planned Parenthood lawyer Carole Christian...
Sunday, Stephen Pitt, general counsel for Bevin, said he is aware of the communications between Planned Parenthood and the Beshear administration. But Pitt believes the advice from the Beshear administration was wrong and said Planned Parenthood should have contacted the Bevin administration before proceeding to offer abortions while its license application was pending."
From the Louisville Courier Journal newspaper story two days ago.
That is to say, PP was told what to do by the State, they followed what they were told, and now Bevin is falsely claiming that they "brazenly set out to conduct abortions without a license." The facts undermine the claim.
Will you say Bevin was wrong to misrepresent the case?
"Do you support that if he did, indeed, falsely charge them with crimes?"
What crimes are you alleging they have been charged with?
"Or is lying okay as long as it's your side?"
If he lied of course it's not OK, would you agree that lying is wrong no matter who does it?
The news I've seen indicates that the problem was a flaw in the license application, specifically failing to have adequate written agreements for emergency treatment in case of a medical emergency.
Now personally, it seems reasonable to me that any non hospital surgical facility have a formal written agreement in place to provide emergency care in case of complications, doesn't it? How could one give informed consent to a surgical; procedure without being informed about emergency procedures?
"Will you say Bevin was wrong to misrepresent the case?"
Sure, why wouldn't I. The bigger question is will you say PP was wrong if they did fail to arrange for emergency coverage and failed to properly fill out their application?
I'm just curious, there doesn't seem to be anything that PP does that would cause you to say anything negative about them, so I had to ask.
Every article I have read agrees that the application was deficient in having the emergency agreements in place. Further I've seen enough quotes from the PP folks indicating that they are going to correct these deficiencies and move forward from there.
Sounds like the shut down was for a legitimate flaw in the state licensing requirements. It also sounds like the Governor is overplaying it to some degree.
The bigger question is will you say PP was wrong if they did fail to arrange for emergency coverage and failed to properly fill out their application?
If they did something wrong, of course, I would say they did something wrong. IF, on the other hand, they went to the state to get the rules to follow, DID what the state said and now a new administration is telling them they did something wrong/they're interpreting rules differently, that does not equate to a deliberate effort to break the law/ignore the law. Quite the opposite.
I have zero investment in PP. I do not follow their work, I neither support nor NOT support their work, I'm not invested in them at all. I just don't like attacks on people/groups that are done with an eye towards demonization and slander, rather than honest disagreement. That's the problem with these sorts of "investigations" and "charges" like Bevin and that fraudulent "news" group - that sort of demonization makes people to come to the side of groups they are actually indifferent towards.
With all the attacks on PP - many false charges and false witness - I have learned more about them than I knew previously (which was practically nothing). I learned that they, by providing pregnancy prevention education and contraceptive assistance, that they have reduced instances of women seeking abortion. As someone who is wary of abortions being used too frivolously, this seems to be a good thing.
If they [conservative lawmakers] do get their way [and defund PP - and their contraceptive services], however, the number of women with easy access to contraceptive services will decrease, the number of unintended pregnancies will rise and, with it, the number of abortions.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-planned-parenthood-defense-videos-abortion-perspec-zorn-0805-jm-20150804-column.html
So, whereas before these sorts of attacks became so public, I was entirely indifferent towards PP, I now at least a little bit support them. So, all that to say that these sorts of vindictive attacks can have unintended consequences. Something conservatives should note.
Sounds like the shut down was for a legitimate flaw in the state licensing requirements. It also sounds like the Governor is overplaying it to some degree.
Fair enough.
Since I've never seen you do anything but support them, it raises questions. Would you be as supportive if you knew that they report the services they provide in order to over emphasize the relatively few non abortion services they provide and to minimize the % or their services that are abortion? Would you be so supportive if you knew that they had lied about what services they provided (specifically mammograms) in order to get increased government funding? Do you really think that 500 million dollars a year to an organization with revenues of over 1.3 billion is not akin to corporate welfare? Can you really support a group that has encouraged people who are HIV positive to hide this information from their sex partners?
It just seems like this is anther situation where you admit to knowing virtually nothing about the issue, yet consistently support an organization. Not saying it's wrong, it just seems strange to so consistently support something you know so little about.
For example, you were pretty excited to trumpet the news that the folks who documented PP selling baby parts got indicted as if that somehow invalidated the hours of unedited video they shot and made public.
Well they were indicted for having a fake drivers license, not for any wrongdoing related to the obtaining the video. At least one of them was offered a plea bargain that amounted to probation. So I'm not sure those indictments actually help PP or buttress your case.
you were pretty excited to trumpet the news that the folks who documented PP selling baby parts got indicted as if that somehow invalidated the hours of unedited video they shot and made public.
Correction: I was pretty insistent on pointing out that the charlatans who slandered and broke laws and bore false witness to try to trip up an organization and who were found to be the ones guilty (not PP) of breaking laws (literally and specifically NOT "documenting" anything, but rather, deliberately twisting facts). But why is that the case? Why would I do find it important to insist on bringing this news to light?
Because those who bear false witness - especially on this scale - undermine our commonwealth, undermine our society to a terrible degree and they undermine Christianity or whatever other organizations they might be associated with.
It has very little to do with PP, in this case, and everything to do with being an honorable society that does not let false witness and slander be an acceptable practice. Did you ever stop to think WHY is it that false witness and slander are not part of the kingdom of God (according to the Bible)? I mean, it's not as if they are killing people or raping or causing overt physical harm, right?
Whoever secretly slanders his neighbor, him I will destroy... ~Psalms
In you are slanderers who are bent on shedding blood... ~Ezekiel
being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God... ~Romans
Lying lips are an abomination to the LORD... Proverbs
And on the Bible goes. Why was slander and false witness taken so seriously in these teachings? I'd say because it is a form of murder. It is an attempt to kill a person's/group's well-being, it is an awful thing that eats away at society.
So, in case you didn't get it, THAT is why I react so strongly to false witness of all stripes, including against PP... not because I'm invested in PP, but I'm invested in a society that does not slander and bear false witness.
As someone who has a background in journalism, I would think you'd join me in taking great offense at these people who are not engaged in ethical journalism, but in slander and misrepresentation. They undermine journalistic integrity of the sort that I and I'm sure you believe in.
Who is it who "brought false witness"?
Maybe you are not aware that all of the unedited rough video that was shot is available. Are you aware of the availability of the unedited videos?
"Correction: I was pretty insistent on pointing out that the charlatans who slandered and broke laws and bore false witness to try to trip up an organization and who were found to be the ones guilty (not PP) of breaking laws (literally and specifically NOT "documenting" anything, but rather, deliberately twisting facts)."
OK, you've made a claim (ho slandered and broke laws and bore false witness to try to trip up an organization and who were found to be the ones guilty), can you provide proof of any of your allegations? Specifically, what have they been "found guilty" of?
"But why is that the case?"
I have no idea.
"Why would I do find it important to insist on bringing this news to light?"
Well if the "news" you speak of is the quote above, then you might want to check your facts before you make such claims.
What "false witness" exactly are you talking about? Can you point to any specific demonstrable instance where the unedited video shows events or comments that did not happen?
"Did you ever stop to think WHY is it that false witness and slander are not part of the kingdom of God (according to the Bible)?"
Yes. Have you ever thought that your above claim that these people have been found "guilty" when they have not is bearing false witness? Do you understand that difference between indictment and conviction? Do you understand that "slander" is not a criminal offense and that one cannot be found "guilty" of "slander?
"I mean, it's not as if they are killing people or raping or causing overt physical harm, right?"
Well, PP is killing people, but you don't seem to be too bothered by that. But no it's not. Why, in your opinion, is "slander" wrong?
"Why was slander and false witness taken so seriously in these teachings?"
Yes, well if you think the Bible is a rulings book and look to it for a list of things that are not moral, then you could conclude that it was taken seriously. Of course, that's the OT and it's just myth. It doesn't apply to us now. The Romans passage is interesting, because of how you chose to edit it. I can only assume that you give v.32 just as much validity as you do 29-31 right?
To answer your question, I'd start with the nature of God and go from there.
As someone who has a background in journalism I have no problem at all with investigative journalism, investigative journalism has uncovered all kinds of unsavory things. This is just one more.
OK, here's the deal. I took this off topic and allowed it to go on. Having said that there are a number of unanswered questions from my comment of 10:48 in addition to my most recent comment. So, I am going to make this very clear. Until you answer the outstanding questions from those two comments there will be no more comments. You have been clear, that you are very uninformed about this situation and the claims you made call into question your understanding of the legal system. Once you clear these things up, you can move on if you wish. I'm sorry if the number of questions places too much of a burden on you, but it is critical that there I understand the limits of your knowledge about this.
If as you said, you know "a little more now", than the "practically nothing" you knew previously, then it seems to serve little purpose for you to be discussing this topic from a place of knowing "a little more" than "practically nothing" as you would not be discussing this from a place of knowledge.
Sorry if this offends you, but that's the way it is.
Who is it who "brought false witness"?
Those two charlatans and everyone who keeps citing them saying that PP is selling baby parts. They're not. It's been investigated and repeatedly, PP has been found NOT guilty of selling baby parts. It's a false witness and it just keeps getting repeated.
Maybe you are not aware that all of the unedited rough video that was shot is available. Are you aware of the availability of the unedited videos?
I'm aware.
OK, you've made a claim (ho slandered and broke laws and bore false witness to try to trip up an organization and who were found to be the ones guilty), can you provide proof of any of your allegations? Specifically, what have they been "found guilty" of?
Sorry, indicted, to be more specific. The specifics:
"David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt were indicted for tampering with a governmental record, a second-degree felony, and Daleiden was also indicted on the count of prohibition of the purchase and sale of human organs, a class A misdemeanor, according to the Harris County district attorney."
Also, PP is charging the group with additional charges...
"Planned Parenthood this month filed a lawsuit against the Center for Medical Progress, alleging the defendants lied their way into the recorded meetings and set up a fake company and personal identities to pull off the videos.
The lawsuit also accuses the group of committing crimes including wire and mail fraud, invasion of privacy, illegal secret recording and trespassing."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/25/politics/planned-parenthood-activists-indicted/
We'll see where that goes.
...
What "false witness" exactly are you talking about? Can you point to any specific demonstrable instance where the unedited video shows events or comments that did not happen?
They do not illegally sell baby body parts. That's the charge that has been repeatedly brought against them (just last week in the Louisville newspaper, a GOP politician repeated the lie), it has been repeatedly disproven.
Have you ever thought that your above claim that these people have been found "guilty" when they have not is bearing false witness? Do you understand that difference between indictment and conviction?
Yes, and corrected. A simple mistake. When they are found guilty - and there appears little doubt that they will, the facts aren't in dispute - they will be guilty. In the meantime, they have been indicted and appear likely to be convicted. Time will tell. I'll be the first to admit I misspoke should they be found innocent, but the facts about the crimes do not appear to be in question.
Do you understand that "slander" is not a criminal offense and that one cannot be found "guilty" of "slander?
Spoken defamation (ie, slander) is a civil wrong and one can be charged for it. Here, though, I was speaking more of the general immorality of character assassination/slander, not a crime.
PP is killing people
PP is not committing murder. It provides abortion services for parents/families who want to use that service. "Killing people" is a loaded phrase and not an accurate description at all of what PP does. It is, I'd posit, a form of slander and the bible teaches you to not do that, that it is an abomination, that God hates that behavior and those who engage in it are not part of the kingdom of God. If you're the sort to take it as a rule book.
War "kills people," and actions like Hiroshima "kills innocent people," but many on the conservative side don't seem to object to that. I suppose they think circumstances matter/make a difference.
...but you don't seem to be too bothered by that. But no it's not. Why, in your opinion, is "slander" wrong?
Because it causes observable harm. Because it undermines society. Because it is corrupt and corrupting. And, as a follower of Jesus and his way of Grace, I disapprove because it is not of Grace or God's realm.
I can only assume that you give v.32 just as much validity as you do 29-31 right?
I give the whole Bible due consideration and validity, understood correctly.
"PP has been found NOT guilty of selling baby parts."
While your finishing the rest I'm going to look at this one statement and the contradictions in it.
1. PP has not been tried for selling baby parts, therefore it is impossible for them to have been found not guilty.
2. As with OJ Simpson, we all know that because someone has been tried and acquitted or not charged does not mean that they did not engage in the act in question.
3. As a result of this publicity PP publicly agreed to stop the sale of baby parts, which would indicate that they were engaged in the sale of baby parts.
4. You point out that one of the charges was "prohibition of the purchase and sale of human organs", if that is the case then the allegation is that this person stopped PP from selling baby parts. Obviously, if they were not selling baby parts, they could not have been stopped from the sale of baby parts, because there must be a sale in order for the sale to be stopped.
It's this kind of thing that leads me to ask questions about the legal aspects of this, because you just don't appear to quite grasp some of the nuance.
"Also, PP is charging the group with additional charges..."
Filing a lawsuit is not the same as being charged. A lawsuit is a civil matter, charges are brought in criminal matters.
"PP is not committing murder."
I quite clearly never said they were. From both a legal and scientific perspective the "service" PP provides results in the ending of a human life. You can equivocate and try to excuse it all you want, but the cold hard fact is that an abortion kills a human being.
"I suppose they think circumstances matter/make a difference."
What is truly bizarre and almost insane idea those conservatives have. What madness would posses them to think that circumstances make a difference. Why that's just nuts.
What is the difference between consensual sex and rape? The circumstances.
That's enough for now, I'll try to amuse myself with what you have when I have time.
I don't think you understand, Craig. That was my point precisely, Circumstances DO matter. Some people can find justification for wiping out an entire city of innocent bystanders and not find it immoral, indeed, can find it justified. Some people can find justification in ending the life of a fetus. For the people involved, it's the circumstances that make the difference.
Can you honestly tell me that you cannot see a difference between the US bombing a country that engaged in a series of unprovoked attacks, engaged in the most vile kinds of barbarities against the people they conquered and those they captured, and someone who is unwilling or unable to keep themselves from getting pregnant and decides it's more convenient to "end the life" of their child? This may be news to you but pregnancy is virtually 100% preventable. There is the most obvious 100% effective way to prevent it, exercise a modicum of self control. If, however, one is not able to exercise self control there are numerous methods of birth control with effectiveness rates of over 95%. Beyond that there are thousands of people who would absolutely love to be able to adopt an infant.
(The adoption one strikes pretty close to home for me, because if it was up to folks like you I wouldn't be here. When I see what being adopted did for both me, my sister, and my parents it seems the height of selfishness to "end the life" of a child and deny those benefits to others.)
While I'm waiting for you to finish and deal with the contradictions that fill your earlier responses I'll keep going on what you have so far.
"They do not illegally sell baby body parts."
Yet they were engaged in the selling of baby body parts. For all your false piety and talk of morals, this little bit of fact doesn't seem to bother you at all.
"That's the charge that has been repeatedly brought against them..."
Because there is hours of unedited video that demonstrates that they were selling human body parts, and that they were modifying their usual abortion procedures in order to maximize their ability to profit.
"I'll be the first to admit I misspoke should they be found innocent,..."
I'll just bet you will. I know you have very little knowledge about the legal system and are not that concerned in being precise about legal issues, but I have to point this out. Someone charged with a crime is not found "innocent", they are found not guilty. Innocent means that they did not commit the crime, not guilty means that the prosecution was unable to convince the jury. Again using the OJ example, OJ was found not guilty. That does not mean that he didn't kill Nicole and Ron. Do you understand the difference and why it (and other precise definition) are important i our legal system?
"Spoken defamation (ie, slander) is a civil wrong and one can be charged for it."
No, one is not "charged" in a civil matter. Furthermore, in cases of slander and libel truth is a defense. All that needs to be demonstrated is that the people actually said what they said. Since that proof is available on the unedited video I suspect that truth will prevail.
""Killing people" is a loaded phrase and not an accurate description at all of what PP does."
As you yourself pointed out, abortion "ends the life" of a unique human being. If you can somehow come up with a convoluted train of "reason" that suggests that "ends the life" is not killing, take your best shot. But, both science and US law would disagree with you.
"I'd posit, a form of slander and the bible teaches you to not do that, that it is an abomination, that God hates that behavior and those who engage in it are not part of the kingdom of God. If you're the sort to take it as a rule book."
What would convince you that "slander" is an "abomination" to God and a behavior that He "hates"? But when you refer to slander in this sense you are not referring to what slander means in US Civil Code, but to some other definition, correct? Are you suggesting that the two definitions of "slander" are interchangeable?
"I give the whole Bible due consideration and validity, understood correctly."
This less than forthcoming answer suggests that a)you are unaware of what v.32 say, b) your are aware of what v. 32 says but have come up with some "interpretation" that allows you to conclude that when "understood correctly" that it means something other than what the plain text would indicate.
Well you've got enough on your hands with finishing providing answers for the rest of the questions and dealing with your contradictions.
I'd suggest that you work through the answers chronologically starting with those in my February 3, 2016 at 6:45 PM, then the February 4, 2016 at 10:48 AM. After that you could move toward dealing with your contradictions.
I'm trying to be polite and respectful, but if you choose to try to not do what I have asked i really don't have any choice except to do what I told you I would.
Sorry, one more question.
Are you suggesting that you would always support the prosecution of anyone who breaks the law in pursuit of some goal beyond simply personal gain?
"I support holding people accountable if they break laws."
May I ask for clarification?
Are you saying that anyone who breaks the law should be prosecuted? Are you saying that there is nothing (leaving aside the starving stealing food) that would justify people who knowingly break the law not being prosecuted?
So, did you just intentionally decide not do do as I asked are are you just unable to figure out what I asked yo to do?
I'm going to respond to your questions before I delete your comments for choosing not do do as you were asked.
"In the matter of bombing innocent civilians and babies as in Nagasaki, it is a nation deciding to deliberately target and take away the lives (maim, blast, burn, destroy homes and property) of innocent bystanders, using our tax dollars to kill innocents."
So the overall context means nothing to you? You're going to be critical of Nagasaki, but ignore Nanking? You're going to be critical of Hiroshima, but ignore the events that led up to it? There is no way to be intellectually consistent while isolating the events of Nagasaki from the larger context. You also can't ignore the Japanese government's culpability. They were given plenty of opportunities to stop the war they started and surrender, yet they chose not to. I'm sorry but trying to take this out of context is BS, trying to establish some sort of equivalency between that and the willful killing of one's own child is absurd. The absolute best possible option would be to say that both actions are barbaric but both are sometimes necessary. Hell, the greatest Japanese military leader of the war predicted the outcome before the Japanese started their brutal war of aggression. Yet somehow you just can't bring yourself to blame anyone but the evil Americans, can you.
"That is a huge difference. Can you honestly not see that difference?"
Sure I do, but you're the one who brought up the crappy analogy, not me. Oh, and the government is funding PP (with revenues of 1.3 billion) to the tune of $500 million dollars a year, so no matter how creatively the try to do the accounting the US government is providing corporate welfare to an organization that makes the majority of it's revenue performing abortions.
"Do you think that individuals should not have the liberty to make personal medical and end of life decisions for themselves and their families?"
I'll answer after a couple of clarifying question, do you agree with Peter Singer about the limits of the scope of those "medical decisions)?
Do you think that individuals should have an unlimited liberty to make any personal medical and end of life decisions with no constraints?
Are you suggesting that abortion is a medical procedure that is free from harm?
My answer is that the Hippocratic oath says "First do no harm." and I'd suggest that anything that ends the life of a human being is by definition harmful.
You yourself argue that "harm" is the best way to determine right and wrong, what could be more harmful than intentionally ending the life of ones own child?
What does Jesus say about anyone who harms little children?
I apologize for deleting you, but just like the Japanese before Pearl Harbor you have chosen a course of action and now you reap the results of what you've sown. Which is another Biblical concept.
"Does that answer your questions?"
Pretty much, it just sort of contradicts your earlier answer. But I suspected that you would come up with exactly the exceptions you did.
But it doesn't answer the rest of the unanswered questions.
I'd suggest that you work through the answers chronologically starting with those in my February 3, 2016 at 6:45 PM, then the February 4, 2016 at 10:48 AM. After that you could move toward dealing with your contradictions.
I'm trying to be polite and respectful, but if you choose to try to not do what I have asked i really don't have any choice except to do what I told you I would.
How routinely and typically hypocritical that Dan would decry the collateral damage of civilian death in war, but somehow can't see the intentional killing of human beings as murderous, when that intentional killing is consistent with all other legal understandings of murder. Yes. He does whatever he can to support PP, and by doing so totally ignores the implications and the self-inflicted indictment of his already questionable character.
It is my understanding that in the state of Texas, the makers of the videos broke Texas law even by posing as buyers of fetal body parts while having no intentions of actually buying fetal body parts. So there's that. "60 Minutes" best watch itself while doing investigative stings. Especially if doing research on PP in Texas, where proponents of PP and abortion might be among those deciding your case, which I understand is the case now.
Also, who else might be guilty of using fabricated government-issue IDs? Hmmm. Teens buying beer? Illegal immigrants? Hang 'em all!!! Those folks are certainly out to enrich themselves. The fact that David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt had the lives of the most innocent of our kind in mind is besides the point, right?
I have read articles that claim PP was never found guilty of wrong-doing, but nothing that shows the focus stayed on them, rather than divert to what David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt were doing. Their website has the full unedited vids available for viewing. One seems to indicate references to profits being generated by providing body parts. Since I have not viewed that vid personally, I cannot insist it is proof of PP making those profits. It does suggest a concern about how "compensation" negotiations were done with David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt. Enough to merely cover costs (as if there is a great cost in turning over body parts), or a bit more?
Getting back to Dan's routine and typical hypocrisy, those verses on slander he presents suggests he is speaking for God by daring to suggest they mean what Dan says they mean. After all, "thou shalt not" can mean just about anything. We have absolutely no idea whatsoever about what God could have possibly meant by such words, regardless of our own understanding of their definition.
Carry on.
Actually Art, it's a great business model. Some poor young (statistically likely to be black)girl comes in get's advised to undergo a surgical procedure (without telling mom and dad unlike every other elective surgery), and is charged for the cost of the procedure. This procedure results in (at no additional cost to PP) human baby parts that they can sell for an amount that "covers their costs", except the costs have already been covered. So what they have is a product which costs them nothing, they they can sell. Whatever they get from the sale is, of course, virtually 100% profit since the charge for the surgical procedure has covered the cost to acquire the parts for sale. The bigger question is, if (as we are told) the "fetus" is the property of the mother to dispose of as she wishes, they why is the mother not compensated for her "donor fetus"? Or, does PP inform the mothers before the surgical procedure that their baby will be parted out and sole? Or that the surgical procedure will be modified in such a way as to increase the likelihood of the maximum amount of salable baby parts so as to increase the amount PP can charge?
Pretty good business model, buy low (free) sell high.
From my perspective, PP could spend all the money that might be involved in storing and then delivering the "donated" body parts (which they deceitfully insist on referring to as "tissue") and I would still demand that they be shut down, or at least denied federal or state funds. As long as ANY tax dollars go to them, I take it as MY money that is being used for the purpose and it sickens me and I would see it stopped.
I agree, but you have to admit that it's a pretty slick business model. Then add the corporate welfare on top of it and the money gets pretty good.
Not only is it a slick business model, it dis proportionally places the costs on poor inner city African Americans and other minorities (who are statistically much more likely to get abortions), and one can't help but wonder if Margaret Sanger's legacy isn't a little more alive than they'd like us to think.
Speaking of Sanger, why in the name of all that is holy would anyone with any grasp of history, let alone a desire to become president accept an award named after a racist eugenicist who's stated goal was to rid the world of inferior races. (Hilary)
Can you imagine the howls of outrage of some republican presidential candidate had at some point accepted the Jefferson Davis award. I guess it's only liberals that can get away with honoring their racists.
"I guess it's only liberals that can get away with honoring their racists."
Michael Savage likes to say that liberalism is a mental illness. It could simply be a manifestation of evil, as defending an outfit like PP, as well as defending the "right" to kill one's own children, is about as evil as evil can be. There's also a lot of ignorance at play, some willful but I suspect there must be some who simply are lured by the platitudes spewed to attract those who can be lured in such a way. Not everyone takes time to study the issues even on a cursory level, with some not even truly realizing just how important it is to do so.
Not sure I'd go that far, but too many American liberals seem either comfortable with or oblivious to the double standard inherent in honor Sanger, while demanding that the confederate flag must be removed from public display. I realize slavery is a horrible thing, but so is race based eugenics.
I think a case can be made that abortion, in general, is far worse than slavery, as one is killed simply for existing at a time inconvenient to the killer. For slaves there is at least the hope of liberty. But yeah, your specific comparison is accurate. Let's see...what's better...enslaving blacks or killing them?
It's not so much about which is worse, but about the fact that the left still celebrates a person who was trying to engage in (essentially) genocide against people simply because of their race. I can't see any circumstance where I'd want that kind of award. Unfortunately, too many either don't know or choose to ignore the genesis of PP and the values of it's (still celebrated) founder.
http://thecripplegate.com/an-open-letter-to-women-considering-abortion/#more-34787
Really well written piece. It's interesting that the writer points out the lack of coverage of the 100,000 plus at the March for Life, given the conversation about accurate reporting going on elsewhere. Pretty much any time a left wing group marches it get's lots of coverage and the numbers are inflated, while those on the right get little or no coverage and are under counted. Remember the reporting around the Tea Party rallies a few years back, how desperately they wanted redneck racists who trashed places and got the opposite. Remember how little we heard about the conditions left after the occupy folks moved on? But, it's all good right, you just have to weed things out.
Re: the open letter. Sound advice for those with ears to hear, regardless of their sex.
"Unfortunately, too many either don't know or choose to ignore the genesis of PP and the values of it's (still celebrated) founder."
I think unfortunately too many have greater love for pleasing themselves than they do the lives of those they invite into existence by their hedonism. Too many simply don't care about the genesis of PP and the values of its founder, and instead are just tickled pink that they can pretend what grows inside them isn't human and they can be free of it for a nominal cost.
Back to the letter.
I like how the writer unabashedly refers to abortion as what it is: murder. This is true for the vast majority of them.
And yeah, both the March for Life and the Tea Party rallies got no or purposely inaccurate coverage by the media in general.
I agree that for many, the attraction of unfettered selfishness is very powerful, I think it allows people to blind themselves to the consequences of their action.
I have a hard time using the term "murder" to describe abortion. I realize that in many ways that abortion does fit the definition of murder, but at the same time murder is a legal term and at this point in history abortion is not technically murder. At some point recently i was having this discussion with Dan regarding some of the legal nuances that he either doesn't understand or is choosing to ignore in order to throw around words improperly. I think this is similar in that we should have a degree of respect for the use of legal terms.
I realize that the legal side of things is s bit confusing in that the same physical act (ending the life of a human baby) is illegal under some circumstances while legal under others (those circumstances mostly relating to location). Having said that I still think it beneficial to avoid throwing around the term "murder" in this discussion even though in many ways it fits.
This is a case where avoiding the use of the term allows for denying the seriousness and reality of the act in question. What makes some killings unlawful, or termed "murder", is what makes 95+% of abortions murder. Better would be to routinely add "legal" before the term "murder", as libs do with capital punishment. It is far more appropriate here than for CP.
I would also add that "murder" is the closest term we have for describing just how heinous the practice is in those 95+% of abortions. Considering the victims, and how they are regarded as less than human, "murder" doesn't go far enough. It's just the best we have.
I'm not sure I agree that losing the precision of the legal term is worth it, but I wouldn't make a huge deal about it. Personally, I feel that if I'm going to expect that Dan uses legal terms precisely and appropriately, then I think I need to do the same. I'm pretty impressed that Dan has admitted that abortion ends a human life, that seems to be a step in the right direction. I realize that his excusing the ending of certain human lives, while selectively demonizing those who cause civilian deaths in wartime is an incredible double standard (what's new), but the fact that he's at least acknowledged this fact is a step in the right direction.
I'm not going to suggest that it's wrong to refer to abortion as murder, just that I have a problem doing so.
The problem isn't the use of the term, it's the fact that the act isn't illegal. Killings that fall under the legal definition are so labeled due to the motivations behind the act. These motivations, as you acknowledge, would make the exact same act murder if the victim was not still in the womb. It's a semantic game I won't play as the intentions match most of what otherwise would result in a murder charge were it NOT for the location of the victim. I can't think of a word that is more precise in describing what is happening in the vast majority of abortion cases. The shoe fits.
I'm fine with you making that choice, it's just not one that I feel is necessary at this point. Especially considering my desire to show consistency in how I deal with Dan. Under different circumstances I might choose to use the term murder, but I personally don't find that it is helpful in moving the conversation forward.
Post a Comment